[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140106110803.GA5623@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2014 12:08:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Li Zefan <lizefan@...wei.com>,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86: Add Cache QoS Monitoring (CQM) support
On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 12:34:41PM -0800, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote:
> The CPU features themselves are relatively straight-forward, but
> the presentation of the data is less straight-forward. Since this
> tracks cache usage and occupancy per process (by swapping Resource
> Monitor IDs, or RMIDs, when processes are rescheduled), perf would
> not be a good fit for this data, which does not report on a
> per-process level. Therefore, a new cgroup subsystem, cacheqos, has
> been added. This operates very similarly to the cpu and cpuacct
> cgroup subsystems, where tasks can be grouped into sub-leaves of the
> root-level cgroup.
This doesn't make any sense.. From a quick SDM read you can do pretty
much whatever with those RMIDs. If you allocate a RMID per task (thread
in userspace) you can actually measure things on a task basis.
>From then on you can use perf-cgroup to group whatever tasks you want.
So please be more explicit in why you think this doesn't fit into perf.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists